{"id":1172,"date":"2011-12-24T18:08:43","date_gmt":"2011-12-25T01:08:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/?p=1172"},"modified":"2016-06-16T20:40:19","modified_gmt":"2016-06-17T03:40:19","slug":"congressional-pay-raise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/?p=1172","title":{"rendered":"Congressional Pay Raise"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Click<\/a>
\nln 1965 congressional\u00a0salaries were raised from $22,-500 to $30,000 – and four years\u00a0ago there was a 41 per cent jump to $42,500.<\/p>\n

Now a new proposal in\u00a0process would give congress\u00a0members and some other\u00a0officials salary increases\u00a0reportedly in the neighborhood
\nof $10,000 a year.\u00a0Obviously rising living costs\u00a0affect congressmen as well as\u00a0everyone else. But are such\u00a0massive salary increases\u00a0justified? Are they consistent\u00a0in an atmosphere of economic\u00a0controls and appeals for non-inflationary labor contracts?<\/p>\n

If the present bi-partisan\u00a0effort in Congress succeeds,\u00a0the new pay boost will be
\napproved this year instead of\u00a0next to avoid political\u00a0embarrassment in the election
\nyear.\u00a0The raise can be\u00a0accomplished without even the\u00a0necessity of a congressional
\nvote, The plan works like this:<\/p>\n

1. The nine-member\u00a0Commission on Executive,\u00a0Legislative, and Judicial
\nSalaries submits its report to the White House on June 30,(This was done on schedule.The report has been a closely-guarded secret but inside sources have pegged recommended congressional salaries at between $52,000 and $55,000).
\n2. Current law provides that the President transmit his
\nrecommendations to Congress in January with his budget for fiscal 1975. Congress then has 30 days to act – or rather, not to act. If the solons sit tight and do nothing, the pay raises go into effect. To reject the boost, the Senate and House must specifically pass a bill turning it down.
\n3. Legislation before Congress right now – sponsored hy Senators Gale McGee (D-Wyo.) and Hiram Fong (R-Hawaii) – sets up machinery
\nto settle the salary issue before the 1974 election year,
\nwithout tampering with the “back door” process of an in-
\ncrease without the necessity of a congressional vote. The bill
\ncalls for salary commission recommendations every two years instead of four, retains June 30 as the report deadline,but requires the President to submit his findings to Congress by Aug. 31. Congress
\nwould have until Oct. 1 to reject any raise – or allow it to take effect.
\nThe Herald believes the salary commission’s report should be made public im mediately. We believe, too, that the “back door” maneuver should be abandoned in favor of full debate and a record roll call. As Rep. H.R. Gross of Iowa was quoted as saying: “If members of Congress want a pay raise they should stand up and be counted.” Commission recommendations every two years instead of four might be more reflective of cost ofliving changes.
\nIndeed, some type of plan for cost-of-living increases, as proposed by Sen. Theodore Stevens (R-Alaska) might be preferable to the big
\njump every four years. As for moving the salary question to
\nnon-election years, we don’t see why Congress should worry if proposed raises are moderate and justified.
\nWe must expect to pay our senators and representatives and other officials adequately. But raises should be accomplished in a highly
\npublic way with opportunity for public input; on a scale
\nthat we can afford; and in keeping with non-inflationary policies. In the practice of sound economics, Congress should set the example.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ln 1965 congressional\u00a0salaries were raised from $22,-500 to $30,000 – and four years\u00a0ago there was a 41 per cent jump to $42,500. Now a new proposal in\u00a0process would give congress\u00a0members and some other\u00a0officials salary increases\u00a0reportedly in the neighborhood of $10,000 a year.\u00a0Obviously rising living costs\u00a0affect congressmen as well as\u00a0everyone else. But are such\u00a0massive salary increases\u00a0justified?… Continue reading Congressional Pay Raise<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[24,75,8,57,9,54],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1172"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1172"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1172\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2011,"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1172\/revisions\/2011"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gashler.com\/nlc\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}